These Are The Lawsuits That Have Been Litigated, And I Want To Make That Part Of The Record

The bill addresses the growing problem of nuisance lawsuits filed with the intention of driving the firearms industry out
of business by attempting to hold manufacturers and dealers liable for the criminal acts of third-parties who are totally
beyond their control. My colleagues' 26 States, including my home State of  Florida, Louisiana, and Virginia, have passed legislation prohibiting these types of suits. H.R. 2037 is designed to mirror what the States have done on a national level.
For the past several years, over 30 cities and counties, as well as individuals across the country, have sued the gun
industry, and targeted the firearms and ammunition industries, for the damages and injuries resulting from guns used during
the criminal acts of third parties. These suits are different from other lawsuits against an industry. The cities and counties are not representing specific victims, nor are they claiming specific damage against city property. Instead, they are suing because they happen to dislike a product that a company produces and markets legally. This is not right, just as suing a car manufacturer for drunk driving accidents, or suing a fast food company because its hamburgers have too many calories.
Creative legal theory does not make good public policy.

What these suits represent are blatant attempts to regulate an industry, an issue that clearly raises separation of powers questions in this subcommittee. That is, that Congress makes the laws and the judiciary interprets the laws. In fact, I raised these constitutional concerns regarding these lawsuits in 1999, when a gun manufacturer, Smith & Wesson, was forced into signing an agreement in regards to the design and distribution of its products under pressure from all these types of suits.  Interesting enough, the cities were supposed to drop their suits if Smith & Wesson signed the deal, but the majority of them did not. Despite the cities desire to continue these suits, ultimately they have proven unsuccessful. Time and time again the courts have ruled that it is the place of the State Legislatures and Congress to regulate industry. For example, in dismissing the Cincinnati case against a gun manufacturer, the courts found that the complaint, ``an improper attempt to have this court substitute its judgment for that of the legislature, which this court is neither inclined nor empowered to do.'' Another example is in Gary, Indiana, the court characterized the suit as an attempt to create, ``judge made gun laws.'' In Miami, the court states, ``The judiciary is not empowered to enact regulatory measures in the guise of injunctive relief. The power to legislate belongs not to the judicial branch of the government, but to the legislative branch.'' And finally my colleagues in the city of Boston dropped its suit against gun manufacturers, citing the efforts that the industry has put forth to reduce firearm accidents and criminal violence. In addition, the city states in its motion to dismiss, acknowledges that, ``The members of the industry and firearms' trade associations are genuinely concerned with and are committed to the safe, legal, and responsible sale and use of their products.'' One may question a need for this legislation given the fact that the plaintiffs are losing. The fact is that these types of cases are still being pursued as I speak. Jersey City, New Jersey, filed suit against a gun manufacturer last month. Despite the lack of societal benefits of these suits, the costs can range in the millions for the cities, the industry, and obviously ultimately the taxpayer.

One would think that these cities would put this money tobetter use serving the general populations that they tax. H.R.
2037 is designed to prevent these types of frivolous lawsuits that seek nothing more than the bankruptcy of an industry that
makes a legal product doing legal commerce. Dave Koppel, an adjunct professor at the New York University Law School stated, ``The cities don't even have to win in court. All they have to do is keep suing.'' Therefore, 26 States have recognized this fact, and as I mentioned earlier, have passed legislation accordingly. And I would like to point out to my colleagues, our
witnesses, and the public, that it is the purpose of a legislative hearing to receive expert testimony from witnesses involved in the issue, ask questions, and get valuable input regarding the legislation. In reading some of the opening statements today, I am aware of the concerns regarding cases like Kitchen versus K-Mart, a case from the Florida Supreme Court, in which the plaintiff, Ms. Kitchen, was paralyzed after being shot by an ex-boyfriend with a .22 caliber rifle he purchased after consuming a case of beer and a fifth of whiskey. The case ultimately went to the Florida Supreme Court, and was decided in favor of Ms. Kitchen. Now, the action of selling a firearm to a clearly intoxicated and inebriated individual, who then goes out and injuries or kills another person with that firearm, or similar actions involving what to term as a negative entrustment, that is, the intrusting of a dangerous article to one who is incompetent to use it safely, should not be protected and is not protected under this bill.  So, my colleagues, the goal of this legislation is to cease the attempts at regulation through lawsuits that achieve nothing except the blatant interference and a company's constitution right to sell and market a legal product, and a constitution duty of the Congress to regulate the commerce ofsuch product. So I look forward to the testimony from our witnesses today, and I welcome all of them. And I would like to put in the record a list of some 35 lawsuits that have been dismissed because of the courts saying they were nuisance suits, and it gives the claim and the lawsuit preemption and the status.